Publications  of  the  Central  Bureau 


Brochure  VI 


Modern  Socialism 

BY 

REV.  HERMAN  J.  MAECKEL,  S.  J. 


I  9  I  2 

Central  Bureau  of  the  German  Roman  Catholic  Central  Verein 
307— 308  Temple  Bldg.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 


NIHIL  OBSTAT. 

St.  Louis,  i8.  Nov.  1912. 


F.  G.  HoiyWECK,  Censor 


IMPRIMATUR. 

O.  J.  S.  HooG,  V.  G. 

/' 

I 


1000—5000 


Modern  Socialism 


KV 

REV.  HERMAN  J.  MAECKEL,  S.  J. 


I.  WHAT  IS  MODERN  SOCIALISM? 

Socialism  in  its  modern  acceptation  is  "a  system  both  economic  and 
political,  which  advocates  the  abolition  of  private  property  in  the  means 
of  production  and  the  substitution  therefor  of  collective  ownership,  with 
consequent  collective  control  of  the  production  and  distribution  of  the 
goods  produced  by  the  entire  people  constituted  into  a  democratic  com- 
monwealth." 

All  the  latest  platforms  of  Socialist  parties  assert  these  characteristics 
more  or  less  expl  icitly.  All  demand  the  abolition  of  the  present  system  of 
private  property  and  the  socialization  of  ownership  in  the  means  of  pro- 
duction vv^ithout  limitation  and  restriction.  The  platform  of  the  Socialist 
Labor  Party  says  expressly  that  a  summary  end  must  be  put  to  the  pres- 
ent barbarous  struggle  by  the  abolition  of  classes  and  the  restoration  of 
the  land  and  all  the  means  of  production,  transportation,  and  distribution 
to  the  people  as  a  collective  body. 

The  national  platform  of  the  Socialist  Party  adopted  in  Chicago  in 
1904  declares:  ''Socialism  means  that  all  those  things  upon  which  the 
people  in  common  depend  shall  by  the  people  in  common  be  owned  and 
administered.  It  means  that  the  tools  of  employment  shall  belong  to  their 
users  and  creators ;  that  all  production  shall  be  for  the  direct  use  of  the 
producers ;  that  the  making  of  goods  for  profit  shall  come  to  an  end ; 
that  we  shall  be  workers  together,  and  that  all  opportunities  shall  be  open 
and  equal  to  all." 

Private  property,  however,  in  the  goods  of  consumption,  such  as 
food,  clothing,  dwellings,  furniture,  utensils,  may  be  retained  by  the  in- 
dividual ;  but  with  this  restriction,  that  they  shall  not  be  employed  in  pro- 
ductive enterprises.  Under  Socialism  as  explained  by  the  American  So* 
cialist,  a  man  may  own  his  own  house  and  furnish  it  in  the  most  luxurious 
way.  It  is  his  own  forever,  to  do  with  it  as  he  pleases,  except  to  let  it 
out  for  rent.  Even  such  productive  property  as  a  wheelbarrow  or  a  sew- 
ing m3':hine  may  remain  private  property,  only  not  to  be  used  as  capital. 
Landowners,  too,  may  retain  permanently  the  land  that  they  cultivate  or 
occupy,  but  should  be  compelled  to  pay  to  the  community  annually  the 
full  rental  value,  exclusive  of  improvements.  All  business,  however,  shall 
be  carried  on  by  the  entire  people,  all  members  of  the  community  being 
obliged  to  contribute  toward  production  by  their  labor. 

The  reason  wdiy  modern  Socialism  advocates  the  social  ownersliip 
of  all  means  of  production  and  the  vesting  of  it  in  the  entire  people  is 
laid  down  in  the  following  consideration :  Competition,  oppression,  and 
exploitation  cannot  be  entirely  abolished  where  private  property  goes  on 

—  3  — 


—  4  — 


with  social  production.  But  this  will  necessarily  be  the  case  if  not  all,  hut 
only  a  part,  of  the  productive  goods  is  socialized.  In  like  manner  anarchy 
of  production,  which  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  free  competition,  will 
not  cease  as  long  as  there  are  many  producers,  no  matter  whether  they 
be  individual  or  corporate.  Consequently,  where  order  and  justice  in 
production  are  to  prevail  there  can  be  but  one  owner  of  productive 
means,  one  controller  and  organizer  of  production.  The  natural  conclu- 
sion drawn  from  this  is  that  the  workers  must  organize  "to  seize  the 
whole  powers  of  the  government,  in  order  that  they  may  thereby  lay  hold 
of  the  whole  system  of  industry,  and  thus  come  into  their  rightful  inher- 
itance." But  if  any  one  were  to  infer  from  this  that  the  government 
should  own  the  means  of  production,  they  say:  "No,  government  owner- 
ship is  not  Socialism ;  it  is  not  necessarily  even  a  step  to  Socialism.  So  - 
cialism means  that  the  workers  shall  own  and  control  the  machinery  of 
production,  and  dispose  of  the  products  as  they  like.  Government  owner- 
ship may  mean,  and  if  administered  by  the  Republican  and  Democratic 
parties  will  mean,  that  the  workers  in  the  government  industries  will  get 
the  value  of  their  labor  power,  and  no  more,  and  that  the  immense  sur- 
plus produced  by  their  labor  will  be  controlled  by  the  capitalist  class." 
(International  Socialist  Review,  August  1911.  page  in.) 

Accordingly,  no  one  can  be  strictly  considered  a  Socialist  who  does 
not  hold  the  central  doctrines  of  collective  ownership  and  control.  There 
are  measures  advocated  by  Socialists,  and  by  them  pronounced  socialistic, 
which  are  not  so.  unless  they  are  regarded  as  steps  towards  the  social- 
istic ideal  or  forming  part  of  a  national  scheme  of  reorganization.  We 
are  not  Socialists  because  we  are  in  favor  of  necessary  legislative  restric- 
tions of  individual  liberty,  in  order  that  we  may  thereby  protect  the  gen- 
eral and  permanent  physical  and  moral  interests  of  the  community. 
Again,  State  regulation  of  industry,  taxation  of  incomes,  municipal  or 
national  ownership  and  administration  of  business,  such  as  railroads,  the 
post-office,  gas,  electric  cars,  are  not  really  socialistic,  nor  evidences  of 
society  drifting,  as  it  is  often  said,  towards  Socialism.  No  doubt  they  mav 
be  fitted  into  a  socialistic  scheme.  But  as  the  facts  show,  they  are  quite 
compatible  with  the  existing  social  order  and,  as  long  as  the  right  of 
private  capital  stands  unchallenged  and  intact,  they  cannot  be  called 
socialistic. 

Now  how  are  they  going  "to  seize  the  whole  powers  of  the  govern 
ment"?  "The  Socialist  Party  of  America,"  we  are  told,  "has  two  main 
functions.  Of  these  the  less  important,  although  the  more  conspicuous, 
is  to  nominate  and,  if  possible,  elect  Socialists  to  office.  We  have  already 
elected  some ;  we  shall  elect  many  more ;  but  they  have  accomplished  little 
in  their  official  capacity  for  the  working  class,  and  in  the  nature  of  things 
can  accomplish  little.  The  really  vital  work  v/hich  the  Socialist  Party 
has  done,  can  do,  and  will  do.  is  the  education  and  organization  of  a  body 
of  clear-headed  revolutionists,  who  understand  the  structure  of  capitalist 
society,  who  are  determined  to  destroy  it,  and  who  can  and  will  plan  in- 
telligently and  work  unitedly  to  that  end."  (International  Socialist  Re- 
^'^V^t;,  July  1911,  page  47.) 

But  if  any  one  were  to  infer  from  this  that  Socialism  means  to  rob 
the  capitalists  and  to  destroy  property  rights,  the  Socialists  will  tell  hirii 
that  he  does  not  know  what  Socialism  is.  The  truth,  they  say,  is  that  So- 
cialism is  the  only  system  of  production  and  distribution  that  will  guaran- 


tee  to  every  human  being  the  possession  of  the  private  proi)erty  to  which 
he  is  entitled  by  reason  of  having  prockiced  it  through  his  own  efforts. 
The  present  capitahstic  system,  they  claim,  denies  the  in(hvi(hial  the  o])- 
portunity  to  own  and  control  the  product  of  his  toil,  which  is  the  only 
private  property  that  any  one  can  rightfully  own,  as  no  one  else  can 
justly  claim  that  which  another  has  produced.  The  present  capitalistic 
system  is,  furthermore,  they  assert,  as  has  been  scientifically  proved  by 
Marx,  a  system  of  exploitation  (robbery),  since  it  permits  the  capitalists 
to  make  profit  of  the  land,  tools  and  machinery  which  all  the  peoj^le  must 
use  in  order  to  live.  It  allows  the  capitalists  to  use  them  for  the  purpose 
of  enriching  themselves,  thus  making  the  great  mass  of  the  people  de- 
pendent on  the  few  private  owners,  who  can  use  this  great  power  for 
every  means  of  oppression  and  tyranny.  Socialism,  therefore,  they  infer, 
does  not  seek  to  rob  any  one  or  to  destroy  property  rights ;  on  the  con- 
trary, it  would  stop  the  long  robbery  of  the  worker  through  profits,  in- 
terest and  rents,  and  secure  to  each  the  right  to  own  all  the  property  he 
might  produce. 

II.  PRINCIPLES  OF  MODERN  SOCIALISM. 

"The  Socialism  that  inspires  hopes  and  fears  today,"  our  American 
Socialists  assert,  ''is  that  of  the  school  of  Marx.  No  one  is  seriously  ap- 
prehensive of  any  other  so-called  Socialistic  movement.  All  the  Socialist 
parties  of  the  world  are  based  on  the  principles  first  stated  by  Marx  and 
Engels."  These  principles  are :  "The  materialistic  conception  of  history" 
and  the  revealing  of  the  secret  of  capitalist  production  by  means  of 
"surplus-value."  "When  the  teaching  of  the  Socialist  philosophy  upon 
these  doctrines  is  clearly  apprehended,"  Socialists  tell  us,  "then  Socialism 
follows  as  the  logical  and  inevitable  deduction." 

A.  M.  Simons,  formerly  editor  of  the  International  Socialist  Rc- 
viezv,  of  Chicago,  in  his  pamphlet,  the  "Philosophy  of  Socialism,"  writes: 
"The  basis  of  Socialism  is  found  in  what  is  sometimes  called  'the  ma- 
terialistic conception  of  history'  or  'economic  determinism'."  In  an  article 
of  his  periodical,  June  1904,  he  says  :  "The  philosophy  of  Socialism  as  gen- 
erally accepted  by  the  Socialist  parties  of  the  world  at  the  present  time 
takes  as  its  fundamental  hypothesis  what  has  been  variously  called  the 
materialistic  interpretation  of  history,  historic  materialism,  or  economic 
determinism." 

According  to  the  opinion  of  Engels  it  was  by  this  conception  of 
history  that  Socialism  advanced  to  the  rank  of  science.  In  this  concep- 
tion of  history  two  elements  are  to  be  distinguished :  first,  the  general 
theory  and,  secondly,  its  application  in  behalf  of  Socialism.  Every 
Marxian  Socialist  must  needs  adopt  the  materialistic  conception  of  his- 
tory as  the  foundation  of  the  edifice,  but  not  everyone  who  accepts  the 
theory  niust  also  necessarily  draw  from  it  the  conclusion  of  Marx  and 
his  followers.  Our  American  Socialists  accept  both  the  theory  and  its 
application. 

The  theory  is  that  in  any  given  epoch  the  one  all-important  and  fun- 
damental element  in  determining  the  social,  legal  and  political  institution 
are  the  economic  conditions.  This  proposition  is  stated  by  Engels  in  the 
introduction  to  the  Communist  Manifesto  in  the  following  way:  "In 
every  historical  epoch  the  prevailing  mode  of  economic  production  and 


oxclianiT^e,  and  the  social  organization  following  from  it,"  forms  the  basis 
upon  which  is  built  and  from  which  alone  can  be  explained  the  political 
and  intellectual  history  of  that  epoch ;  that  consequently  the  whole  his- 
tory of  mankind  (since  the  dissolution  of  primitive  tribal  society  holding 
land  in  common  ownership)  has  been  a  history  of  class  struggles;  that 
the  history  of  these  class  struggles  forms  a  series  of  evolutions  in  which, 
nowadays,  a  stage  has  been  reached  where  the  exploited  and  oppressed 
class — the  proletariat — cannot  attain  its  emancipation  from  the  s-way  of 
the  exploiting  class — the  bourgeoisie — without  at  the  same  time,  and  once 
for  all,  emancipating  society  at  large  from  all  exploitation,  oppression, 
class  distinctions  and  class  struggles. 

This  theory  serves  Marx  as  an  explanation  of  modern  economic 
development,  whereby  he  intends  to  show  that  our  modern  capitalist 
society  must  needs  bring  forth  as  its  natural  result  the  Socialist  order 
of  society.  In  order  to  grasp  the  force  of  the  argument  we  must  take 
a  look  at  his  second  great  "discovery,"  which  in  the  opinion  of  Engels, 
has  effected  the  transition  of  Socialism  from  the  Utopian  to  the  scientific 
stage.  This  discovery  is  the  doctrine  of  ''surplus-value." 

The  theory  of  s\irplus-valuc  reveals  the  fact  that  the  social  system 
of  any  country  or  of  any  epoch  shows  that  those  who  labor  are  exploited. 
One  class  of  people  live  off  the  labor  of  the  others ;  some  partly  off  the 
labor  of  others  and  partly  off  the  products  of  their  own  toil.  And,  as  must 
be  the  case  under  such  circumstances,  there  is  always  a  class  of  people 
who  do  not  get  that  which  tlieir  labor  produces.  The  fact  of  exploitation 
of  labor  is  universal.  It  has  gone  on  everywhere,  and  in  all  ages.  The 
form  changes  but  the  fact  remains.  And  sometimes  it  happens  that 
change  of  the  form,  especially  if  it  be  from  a  severe  to  a  milder  one, 
conceals  the  fact  of  exploitation  for  a  while.  For  example,  the  exploi- 
tation of  labor  under  the  form  of  slavery  is  clear  enough.  The  same  is 
true  now  with  regard  to  serfdom.  But  when  the  form  of  exploitation 
changes  from  a  brutal  and  offensive  slavery  to  the  milder  form  of  serf- 
dom, and  then  in  recent  times  to  the  form  of  the  wage-earner  system,  the 
fact  of  exploitation  is  not  quite  so  glaring  and  apparent. 

It  is  there,  nevertheless.  The  exploitation  of  labor  continues.  When 
the  capitalist  buys  the  labor  power  of  a  workingman  and  thereby  turns 
him  into  a  wage-worker,  he  does  so  only  because  the  wage-worker  will 
produce  more  than  he  is  paid  for.  If  he  only  produced  as  much  as  he  is 
paid  for — and  worse  yet  if  he  produced  less — the  capitalist  would  have 
no  use  for  him,  would  not  buy  his  labor  power.  The  wage-worker  em- 
ployed by  the  capitalist  is  the  wealth  producer.  Out  of  the  wealth  brought 
into  life  by  the  wage-worker,  the  capitalist  takes  a  part  and  gives  it  to 
the  wage-worker  in  payment  for  his  labor,  as  his  wages.  The  rest  of  the 
wealth  produced  by  the  wage-worker  is  the  "surplus,"  that  is  to  say,  the 
quantity  of  wealth  produced  by  the  worker  over  and  above  what  was 
necessary  to  enable  him  to  restore  the  forces  expended  in  production. 
That  surplus  the  capitalist  keeps  for  himself ;  he  calls  it  "Profit" ;  it  con- 
stitutes his  Income.  Industrial  capital,  accordingly,  hatches  its  profits 
by  exploiting  the  propertyless  wage-worker.  Surplus-value  is,  therefore, 
essentially  "the  product  of  the  unremunerated  labor  of  others."  This 
surplus-value  is  the  key  to  the  whole  present  economic  organization  of 
society.  The  end  and  object  of  bourgeois  society  is  the  formation  and 
accumulation  of  surplus-value,  or  in  other  words,  the  systematic  robbery 


—  7  — 


of  the  producing  class.  There  is  thus  an  inherent  antagonism  between 
the  two  classes. 

As  the  conflict  takes  shape  it  begins  to  develop  remarkable  features. 
At  the  one  end  we  have  the  continued  appropriation  and  accumulation  of 
surplus-value,  with  the  ever-increasing  wealth  and  power  of  those  in 
whose  hands  it  is  concentrated.  At  the  other  we  have  the  progressive  en- 
slavement and  degradation  of  the  exploited  classes.  ''The  number  of 
proletarians  increases,"  says  the  Erfurt  platform,  "the  army  of  superflu- 
ous workers  assumes  greater  dimensions  from  day  to  day;  the  conflict 
between  the  oppressor  and  the  oppressed  is  becoming  more  and  more 
violent — that  conflict  between  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  proletariat  which 
divides  m.odern  society  into  two  hostile  camps  and  is  the  common  charac- 
terictic  of  all  industrial  nations." 

As  the  development  continues,  the  workers,  on  the  one  hand,  grad- 
ually come  to  recognize  their  position  as  a  class  and  become  possessed  of 
a  sense  of  their  common  interests.  On  the  other  hand,  the  competition 
amongst  the  capitalist  class  is  great  and  continually  growing ;  the  larger 
capitalists  gradually  extinguish  the  smaller  ones,  and  wealth  becomes 
accumulated  in  fewer  and  fewer  hands.  The  state  of  things  becomes  at 
leng^th  intolerable;  there  is  anarchy  in  production,  accompanied  by  cor 
stantly-recurring  crises — "crises,"  as  the  Erfurt  program  says,  "which 
become  ever  more  extensive  and  destructive,  make  universal  insecurity 
the  normal  state  of  society,  and  give  evidence  that  the  productive  forces 
of  our  age  have  become  uncontrollable  by  society,  and  that  private  prop- 
erty in  the  means  of  production  has  become  incompatible  with  their 
proper  utilization  and  full  development."  Then  the  organized  wage- 
workers  seize  possession  of  the  means  of  production  (land  and  capital) 
transforming  them  into  public  property,  and  Socialist  production  be- 
comes henceforth  possible. 

Now,  the  question  arises:  "How  are  the  means  of  production  (land 
and  capital)  of  a  country,  say  of  the  United  States,  to  pass  into  public 
ownership  and  to  be  brought  under  public  administration?"  Will  it  be 
done  by  purchase  or  by  confiscation  pure  and  simple  ? 

To  these  questions  the  Socialist  platforms  give  no  definite  answer. 
But  even  the  most  peaceful  Socialists  hardly  expect  that  the  property  of 
the  capitalist  can  be  brought  under  public  administration  without  a  terr- 
ible struggle  of  classes.  Marx  and  Engels  themselves  declare,  "that 
their  purposes  can  be  attained  only  by  a  violent  subversion  of  the  exist- 
ing order."  "Let  the  ruling  classes,"  we  read  in  the  CommunistManifesto, 
"tremble  at  the  communist  revolution."  "We  must,"  said  Marx  at  the 
congress  of  the  Hague  in  1872,  "finally  have  recourse  to  violence  in 
order  to  establish  the  rule  of  labor."  And  in  his  work  on  Capital,  he  ex- 
claims :  "Violence  is  the  obstetrician  that  waits  on  every  ancient  society 
which  is  about  to  give  birth  to  a  new  one;  violence  is  in  itself  a  social 
factor.' 

The  theory  of  equality  of  rights  among  men  is  another  of  the  fun- 
damental tenets  of  modern  socialism.  The  socialist  demand  for  equality 
assumes  a  twofold  aspect,  one  moderate  and  the  other  extreme.  The 
moderate  view  is  that  of  Marx  and  Engels.  These  two  luminaries  of 
scientific  socialism  describe  the  equality  of  men  aimed  at  by  socialists 
for  the  present  as  the  abolition  of  all  class  distinctions :  every  one  is  to 
be  a  laborer  like  all  the  rest  and  to  get  his  share  of  the  social  product 


—  8  — 


according  to  the  measure  of  his  labor.  The  demand  for  equality  in  its 
extreme  form  is  the  demand  for  perfect  and  absolute  equality  of  rights. 
It  acknowledges  no  diversity  of  rights  and  duties.  It  is  in  this  sense  that 
the  demand  for  equality  is  taken  by  the  great  majority  of  socialists. 
"They  cease  not  from  asserting,"  says  Pope  Leo  in  his  encyclical  'Aposto- 
lici  Muneris',  'that  all  men  are  by  nature  equal,  and  hence  they  contend 
that  neither  honor  nor  respect  is  owed  to  public  authority,  nor  any  obe- 
dience to  the  laws,  saving  perhaps  to  those  which  have  been  sanctioned 

according  to  their  good  pleasure"  "The  Socialists,"  moreover, 

"'wrongly  assume  the  right  of  private  property  to  be  of  mere  human  in- 
vention, repugnant  to  the  natural  equality  between  men,  and,  preaching 
up  the  community  of  goods,  declare  that  no  one  should  endure  poverty 
meekly,  and  that  all  may  with  impunity  seize  upon  the  possessions  and 
usurp  the  rights  of  the  wealthy." 

III.  MODERN  SOCIALISM  AND  PRIVATE  PROPERTY. 

Modern  Socialism  denies  the  right  of  private  property  and  recognizes 
as  lawful  only  collective  ownership  in  the  means  of  production  and  dis- 
tribution, considering  the  former  as  the  source  of  all  our  social  ills  and  re- 
garding the  latter  as  the  necessary  condition  for  the  peace  and  happiness 
of  the  human  race.  But  Leo  XIII.  has  expressly  con(lemned  this  funda- 
mental tenet  of  Socialism  as  erroneous  and  contrary  to  the  divine  truth. 
He  asserts  the  right  of  private  ownership  in  the  means  of  production  not 
only  as  natural  and  innate  in  man,  but  also  as  necessary  for  the  welfare 
of  mankind,  and  hence  regards  its  abolition  and  the  substitution  for  it 
of  public  ownership  as  unjust  and  detrimental  to  social  peace  and  order. 

The  State  or  community  has  no  right  to  abolish  private  property  in 
the  means  of  production,  because  private  property  in  those  means  is  not  a 
social  right,  but  an  individual  right  derived  from  nature,  not  derived  from 
the  State. 

Nay,  the  State  is  in  duty  bound  to  acknowledge,  respect,  and  guard 
private  property,  just  as  it  is  in  duty  bound  to  acknowledge,  respect  and 
guard  all  the  rights  of  the  subject  that  come  from  nature  and  are  in  reason 
anterior  to  the  State.  For,  as  Pope  Leo  says,  "if  the  citizens  of  a  State 
— in  other  words,  the  families — on  entering  into  association  and  fellow^ 
ship,  were  to  experience  at  the  hands  of  the  State  hindrance  instead  of 
help,  and  were  to  find  their  rights  attacked  instead  of  being  upheld,  such 
association  should  be  held  in  detestation,  rather  than  an  object  of  desire." 

We  go  further  than  this.  Wc  maintain  that  not  even  the  consent  of 
all  the  States  could  sanction  the  abolition  of  private  property  in  the  means 
of  production.  The  only  case  in  which  it  could  be  abolished  would  be 
if  all  men,  taken  indiviclually  ,  one  by  one,  consented  thereto.  But  that 
compact  would  only  bind  those  individuals  who  had  consented  thereto, 
but  not  their  children,  since  they  would  receive  the  right  of  having  means 
of  production,  not  from  their  parents,  but  from  nature.  The  assertion, 
therefore,  is  false  that  the  State  or  the  community,  if  they  judge  it  ex- 
pedient, may  force  people  to  have  property  in  common. 

But  here  somebody  will  step  in  and  tell  us  that  Socialism  does  not 
attack  the  right  of  private  property.  He  will  say:  "Socialism,  it  is  true, 
would  abolish  private  property  in  capital,  but  the  latter  institution  is  not 
an  end  in  itself.  Nor  is  it  necessary  as  an  immediate  means  to  the  welfare 


or  development  of  the  person  i)ossessing-  it.  Personal  liberty  is  necessary 
for  the  welfare  of  the  individual.  Not  so  with  property  in  productive 
goods  ;  the  individual,  any  and  every  individual,  can  properly  develop 
his  personality  without  exercising  those  activities  that  are  involved  in 
the  ownership  of  capital.  So  far  as  the  individual  is  concerned,  this  kind 
of  property  is  necessary  only  as  a  means  to  the  possession  and  ownership 
of  goods  of  consumption.  Consequently,  if  the  latter  end  could  be  ob- 
tained under  Socialism,  that  is  to  say,  if  the  collectivity  provided  every 
person  with  the  power  of  owning  those  material  goods  that  are  immedi- 
ately requisite  for  the  self-development  and  for  the  family  life,  the  in- 
dividual need  for  private  property  in  the  instruments  of  production  would 
cease  to  exist.  The  individual  would  still  ])ossess  and  own  all  the  material 
goods  essential  to  right  living." 

We  grant  that  this  argument  shows  that  man  can  get  along  without 
the  ownership  of  means  of  production ;  but  it  does  not  prove  that  Social- 
ism can  rightfully  take  away  from  the  individual  the  right  of  possessing 
such  goods.  For  every  individual  has  a  right  to  acquire  property  in  land 
and  in  capital,  and  he  is  supposed  to  exercise  this  right  when  he  engages 
in  remunerative  labor.  For  as  Pope  *Leo  says:  *'It  is  surely  undeniable 
that  when  a  man  engages  in  remunerative  labor,  the  impelling  reason  and 
motive  of  his  work  is  to  obtain  property,  and  thereafter  to  hold  it  as  his 
very  own.  If  one  man  hires  out  to  another  his  strength  or  skill,  he  does 
so  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  in  return  what  is  necessary  for  sustenance 
and  education ;  he  therefore  expressly  intends  to  acquire  a  right  full  and 
real,  not  only  to  the  remuneration,  but  also  to  the  disposal  of  such  remu- 
neration, just  as  he  pleases.  ...  It  is  precisely  in  such  power  of  disposal 
that  ownership  obtains,  whether  the  property  consists  of  land  or  chattels.'' 

This  doctrine  of  Pope  Leo  is  confirmed  by  Pope  Pius  X.  in  his  Motu 
proprio  "Popular  Catholic  Action,"  where  he  says  that  *'the  right  of  pri- 
vate property,  the  fruit  of  labor  or  industry,  or  of  cession  or  donation 
by  others,  is  an  incontrovertible  natural  right ;  and  everybody  can  dis- 
pose reasonably  of  such  property  as  he  thinks  fit." — He,  furthermore, 
declares  that  "of  the  goods  of  the  earth  man  has  not  merely  the  use, 
like  brute  creation,  but  he  has  also  the  right  of  permanent  proprietorship 
— and  not  merely  of  those  things  which  are  consumed  by  use,  but  also  of 
those  which  are  not  consumed  by  use." 

But,  while  we  condemn  Socialism  as  against  the  Law  of  God  and 
the  rights  of  men,  we  should  also  insist  upon  the  duties  and  limitations 
which  are,  according  to  Catholic  doctrine,  attached  to  the  rights  of 
ownership. 

There  is  a  duty  of  charity  towards  those  who  are  in  need.  "It  is  an 
obligation  for  the.  rich  and  for  those  that  own  property  to  succor  the 
poor  and  the  indigent,  according  to  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel.  This 
obligation  is  so  grave  that  on  the  Day  of  Judgment  special  account  will 
be  demanded  of  its  fulfilment,  as  Christ  Himself  has  said."  (Matthew 
XXV.)  There  is,  furthermore,  a  duty  of  justice  imposed  on  the  employ- 
ers. "It  is  their  duty,"  says  Pope  Pius  X.",  to  pay  just  wages  to  the 
workmen;  not  to  injure  their  just  savings  by  violence  or  fraud,  or  by 
overt  or  covert  usuries ;  not  to  expose  them  to  corrupting  seductions  and 
danger  of  scandal ;  not  to  alienate  them  from  the  spirit  of  family  life  and 
from  love  of  economy ;  not  to  impose  on  them  labor  beyond  their  strength 
nor  unsuitable  for  their  sex."  (^lotu  proprio  "Popular  Catholic  Action"  ). 


—  10  — 


IV.  MODERN  SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIAN  MARRIAGE. 

Thomas  Kirkiip  in  his  book,  "An  Inquiry  into  Socialism,"  informs 
us  that  "it  is  still  by  many  believed  that  Socialism  tends  to  subvert  the 
family  and  the  Christian  ideal  of  marriage."  "Some  of  the  leading  So- 
cialist writers,"  he  admits,  "have  indeed  enunciated  theories  at  variance 
witli  these  institutions.  But  it  should  be  remembered,"  he  says,  "that  such 
opinions  are  not  peculiar  to  Socialism,  and  that  they  have  been  most 
strenuously  opposed  within  the  Socialist  schools."  "As  a  theory  of  econ- 
omic organization,"  he  concludes,  "we  cannot  see  that  Socialism  can  have 
any  special  teaching  adverse  to  marriage  and  the  family."  And  Professor 
Richard  Ely  in  his  book,  "Outlines  of  Economics,"  maintains  that  "a 
number  of  questions  having  no  connection  with  Socialism  have  been, 
even  by  Socialists,  not  infrequently  associated  with  it.  Infidelity  and  free 
love  may  be  mentioned."  But  "of  course,"  he  says,  "these  have  nothing 
to  do  with  Socialism." 

Now,  what  are  we  to  think  of  this?  Is  it  true  that  "Socialism  as  a 
theory  of  economic  organization  has  no  special  teaching  adverse  to  mar- 
riage and  the  family"  ?  Most  assuredly  it  is  not  true.  The  present  mar- 
riage system.  Socialists  tell  us,  is  based  on  the  general  supposition  of  the 
economic  dependence  of  woman  on  the  man,  and  the  consequent  necessity 
for  his  making  provision  for  her,  which  she  can  legally  enforce.  This 
basis  would  (Hsappear  with  the  advent  of  social  economic  freedom,  and 
no  binding  contract  would  be  necessary  between  the  parties  as  regards 
livelihood :  while  property  in  children  would  cease  to  exist,  and  every 
infant  would  be  born  into  full  citizenship.  Thus  a  new  development  of 
the  family  would  take  place,  an  association  terminable  at  the  need  of 
either  party. 

Engels,  in  his  "Origin  of  the  Family"  (pages  91  and  99)  says: 
"Three  great  obstacles  block  the  path  of  reform,  private  property, 
religion  and  the  present  form  of  marriage  ....  With  the  transformation 
of  the  means  of  production  into  collective  property  the  monogamic  mar- 
riage ceases  to  be  the  common  unit  of  society.  The  private  household 
changes  to  a  social  industry.  The  care  and  education  of  the  children  be- 
come a  public  matter.  Society  cares  equally  for  all  children,  legal  or 
illegal." 

In  other  words,  marriage  is  no  more  recognized  by  law ;  parental 
care  and  responsibilities  are  wholly  abrogated  if  the  individual  so  elects, 
because  the  State  in  abolishing  the  present  system  of  property  assumes 
all  those  responsibilities. 

But  here  the  doctrines  of  Socialism  stand  in  flagrant  contradiction 
to  the  teachings  of  the  Church.  Pope  Leo,  in  his  encyclical  on  the  "Con- 
dition of  Labor,"  says:  "Parental  authority  can  be  neither  abolished  nor 
absorbed  by  the  State;  for  it  has  the  same  source  as  human  life  itself." 
"The  child  belongs  to  the  father,"  and  is,  as  it  w^ere,  the  continuation  of 
the  father's  personality;  and,  speaking  strictly,  the  child  takes  its  place 
in  civil  society  not  of  its  own  right,  but  in  its  quality  as  a  member  of  the 
family  in  which  it  is  born.  And  for  the  very  reason  that  "the  child  be- 
longs to  the  father,"  it  is,  as  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  says,  "before  it  attains 
the  use  of  free-will,  under  power  and  charge  of  its  parents."  "The 
Socialists,  therefore,  in  setting  aside  the  parent  and  setting  up  a  State 
supervision,  act  agfainst  natural  justice,  and  break  into  pieces  the  stabilitv 
of  the  family." 


11  — 


But  let  us  suppose  that  marriage  were  to  continue  as  it  is,  the  child- 
ren surely  would  not  be  brought  up  at  home.  All  are  to  work  for  the 
State,  the  women  as  well  as  the  men.  The  mother,  therefore,  will  not  be 
able  to  devote  her  time  to  her  young  children,  nor  can  she  employ  any 
one  else  to  look  after  them  at  home,  since  the  State  is  to  be  the  only  em- 
ployer. ''Every  child,"  says  Bebel.  "that  comes  into  the  world,  whether 
male  or  female,  is  a  welcome  addition  to  society ;  for  society  beholds  in 
every  child  the  continuation  of  itself  and  its  own  further  development;  it 
therefore  perceives  from  the  very  outset  the  duty,  according  to  its  power, 
to  provide  for  the  new-born  child."  The  children  must,  therefore,  be 
taken  at  the  earliest  possible  age  into  the  care  of  the  State,  and  this  is  the 
Socialist  ideal.  All  means  of  education  and  instruction,  even  clothing  and 
food,  will  be  supplied  by  the  State.  The  Erfurt  platform  demands : 
"Secularization  of  the  schools.  Compulsory  attendance  at  the  public 
schools.  Instruction,  use  of  all  means  of  instruction,  and  board  free  of 
charge  in  all  public  elementary  schools  and  in  the  higher  institutions  of 
learning  for  such  pupils  of  both  sexes  as,  on  account  of  their  talents,  are 
judged  fit  for  higher  studies."  The  American  Socialist  Party  platform 
adopted  in  Chicago,  1904,  advocates  ''education  of  all  children  up  to  the 
age  of  eighteen  years,  and  State  and  municipal  aid  for  books,  clothing, 
and  food." 

Thus  the  chief  duty  for  the  sake  of  which  marriage  has  been  in- 
stituted as  an  indissoluble  anion  would  cease  to  exist;  for  a  lifelong  union 
and  cooperation  on  the  part  of  parents  are  not  required  for  the  mere 
propagation  of  children.  As  Pope  Leo  has  it  in  his  encvclical  on  "Christ- 
ian Marriage" :  "By  the  command  of  Christ,"  he  says,  "marriage  looks 
not  only  to  the  propagation  of  the  human  race,  but  to  the  bringing  forth 
of  children  for  the  Church,  fellow  citizens  with  the  saints,  and  the  do- 
mestics of  God ;  so  that  a  people  might  be  born  and  brought  up  for  the 
worship  and  religion  of  the  true  God  and  our  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ." 
...  Parents  are  bound  to  give  all  care  and  watchful  thought  to  the  edu- 
cation of  their  offspring  and  their  virtuous  bringing  up:  "Fathers,  bring 
them  up  (that  is,  your  children)  in  the  discipline  and  correction  of  the 
Lord"  (Eph.  vi,  4).  To  the  parent  belongs  the  right  to  educate  the 
child. 

From  this  we  clearly  see  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  very 
different  from  the  teaching  and  demands  of  Socialism.  The  demands  of 
Socialism,  however,  are  quite  logical.  For  if  Socialism  is  to  effect  abso- 
lute equality  in  the  conditions  of  life  it  must,  first  of  all,  remove  the  uni- 
versal source  of  inequality,  namely,  unequal  education ;  and  this  can  be 
done  only  by  making  education  a  social  concern. 

But  Socialists  do  not  stop  here.  According  to  their  leaders,  neither 
the  state  nor  organized  religion  should  have  ought  to  do  with  control 
of  the  family  or  of  the  sexual  relation.  They  would  make  love  supreme. 
They  would  have  it  unfettered  by  any  tie  whatsoever.  They  argue  that 
compulsory  love  is  not  love ;  that  all  marriage  save  from  love  is  sin ;  that 
when  love  ends  marriage  ends.  For  this  statement  we  have  the  impor- 
tant testimony  of  Bax,  the  renowned  English  Socialist  and  author.  In 
his  book,  "Outlook  from  a  New  Standpoint,"  pages  114  to  159,  he  says: 
"There  are  few  points  on  which  the  advanced  radicals  and  Socialists  are 
more  completely  in  accord  than  their  theoretical  hostility  to  the  modern 
legal  monogamic  marriage.  The  majority  of  them  hold  it,  even  at  the 


~  12  — 


l)rcsciit  time  and  in  the  existing  state  of  society,  to  be  an  evil.  .  .  .  To 
live  in  a  state  of  unlegalized  marriage  defileth  not  a  man,  nor  woman 
neither.  .  ,  .  Enforced  monogamy  and  its  correlative  prostitution  are  the 
great  historical  antithesis  of  civilization.  .  .  .  Socialism  will  strike  at  the 
root  at  once  of  compulsory  Monogamy.  .  .  .  Where  the  wish  of  the 
maintenance  of  the  marriage  relation  remains,  there  is  external  compul- 
sion unnecessary.  Where  it  is  necessary,  because  the  wish  has  disappeared, 
there  it  is  undesirable.  .  .  .  Now,  a  man  may  justly  contend  he  is  per- 
fectly at  liberty  to  join  himself  temporarily  or  permanently  with  a 
woman.  ...  It  would  in  no  wise  be  immoral,  provided  it  were  done  with- 
out hypocrisy." 

Surely,  if  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Socialism,  and  nobody  can  doubt  it, 
then  C.  S.  Devas  is  right  when  he  says :  "The  sacred  union  of  man  and 
woman  for  mutual  help,  for  educating  and  supporting  their  children,  for 
providing  for  their  future  welfare,  the  sense  of  mutual  responsibility  and 
care,  the  true  and  healthy  communism,  that  of  the  home,  the  countless 
cooperative  associations  which  each  family  forms,  the  thousand  ties  of 
dependence  that  are  occasion  for  the  display  of  the  best  qualities  of  hu- 
man nature — this  realm  of  self-devotion  and  self-sacrifice — all  this  be- 
comes unmeaning  and  impossible  where  the  Socialist  State  provides  for 
the  nourishment  and  education  and  technical  training  and  material  and 
moral  outfit  of  each  child.  The  moral  office  of  parents  is  gone,  the  sa- 
cred enclosure  of  home  is  violated,  the  sacred  words  father,  mother, 
sister,  have  been  degraded  to  a  lower  meaning,  and  the  next  step  is  to  re- 
duce the  rearing  of  man  under  approved  physicians  and  physiologists  and 
the  latest  professors  of  eugenics,  to  the  level  of  a  prize-cattle  farm.  The 
Christian  family  and  Collectivism  are  incompatible ;  their  antagonism  is 
so  deep-rooted  that  reconciliation  is  impossible." 

V.  MODERN  SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION. 

Socialists  never  get  tired  of  repeating  that  Socialism  is  a  purely 
enonomic  system  which  does  not  advance  doctrines  touching  matters  of 
religion,  ethics,  and  natural  law  :  that  the  Socialist  party  is  a  purely  po- 
litical party  which  always  refrained  from  taking  stand  on  the  question  of 
religion  in  its  platforms  and  other  official  utterances.  Of  course,  they 
say,  many  Socialists  are  atheists ;  but  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  Social- 
ist party?  The  Republican  party,  too,  numbers  amongst  its  adherents 
atheists,  and  so  does  the  Democratic  party.  Atheism,  however,  is  no 
more  a  part  of  Socialism  than  it  is  a  part  of  Republicanism  or  Demo- 
cracy. Some  Socialists  are  earnest  Christians,  not  a  few  sincere  ministers 
of  the  Gospel.  Alany  Catholics,  Protestants  and  Jews  vote  the  Socialist 
ticket.  As  there  are  good  and  bad  Republicans  and  Democrats,  so  there 
are  good  and  bad  Socialists.  If  every  time  a  Republican  or  Democrat 
was  guilty  of  a  criminal  act  all  the  newspapers  said,  ''That  is  what  comes 
of  being  a  Republican  or  Democrat,"  we  might  feel  inclined  to  think  that 
all  of  them  are  criminals.  It  is,  therefore,  a  mistake  to  believe  because 
some  atheists  are  Socialists  all  Socialistts  are  atheists. 

Now,  we  willingly  admit  that  from  the  fact  ''because  some  atheists 
are  Socialists"  it  does  not  at  once  follow  "that  all  Socialists  are  atheists." 
We  also  concede  that  some  earnest  Christians  and  not  a  few  sincere 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  call  themselves  Christian  Socialists.  We  are, 
furthermore,  not  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  many  Catholics,  Protestants 


-  13  — 


and  Jews,  actuated  by  economic  and  political  motives,  vote  the  Socialist 
ticket.  But  we  do  not  believe  that  Socialist  leaders  and  class-conscious 
Socialists  who  are  fully  imbued  with  the  principles  of  Socialism  are  or 
can  be  good  Christians.  For  this  we  have  the  express  testimony  of  So- 
cialists themselves.  James  Leatham,  a  prominent  English  Socialist, 
writes : 

''At  the  present  moment  I  cannot  remember  a  single  instance  of  a 
person  who  is  at  one  and  the  same  time  a  really  earnest  and  intelligent 
Socialist  and  an  orthodox  Christian.  Those  who  do  not  openly  attack 
the  Church  and  the  fabric  of  Christianity  show  but  scant  respect  to  eitlier 
one  or  the  other  in  private.  .  .  .  And  while  all  of  us  are  thus  indifferent 
to  the  Church,  many  of  us  are  frankly  hostile  to  her.  Marx,  Lassalle, 
and  Engels  among  earlier  Socialists,  Morris,  Bax,  Hyndman,  Guesde  and 
Bebel  among  present-day  Socialists,  are  all  m.ore  or  less  avowed  atheists, 
and  what  is  true  of  the  more  notable  men  of  the  party  is  almost  equally 
true  of  the  rank  and  file  the  world  over."  (Quoted  by  Goldstein,  Social- 
ism, p.  85.) 

And  the  New  Yorker  Volkszeitung,  the  principal  representative  of 
scientific  Socialism  in  New  York  State,  under  date  of  October  9,  1901, 
correctly  characterized  the  attitude  of  Socialism  toward  religion  in  the 
following  words : 

''Socialism  and  belief  in  the  Divinity  as  taught  by  Christianity  and 
its  representatives,  do  not  agree ;  cannot  agree ;  are  diametrically  opposed 
to  one  another.  Socialism  is  logical  only  when  it  denies  the  existence 
of  God,  wdien  it  maintains  that  we  do  not  need  the  so-called  assistance 
of  God,  since  we  are  able  to  help  ourselves.  Only  he  who  has  no  faith 
begins  to  feel  that  he  can  accomplish  something.  The  laborer  wdio  places 
confidence  in  God,  and  who,  with  Christian  resignation,  thinks  that  all 
done  by  God  is  well  done — how  can  that  laborer  develop  revolutionary 
forces  for  the  overthrow  of  authority  and  social  order,  both  of  wdiich, 
according  to  his  faith,  are  instituted  by  God.  As  long  as  he  clings  to  this 
belief  he  will  not  be  able  to  acquire  a  genuinely  revolutionary  spirit." 

But  what  about  the  platforms  and  official  utterances  of  the  Socialist 
party?  Do  they  always  refrain  from  taking  stand  on  the  question  of 
religion?  Surely  not.  The  National  Platform  of  the  Socialist  Party  of 
America,  adopted  May  5,  1904,  contains  the  following  passage :  "As  an 
American  Socialist  Party,  we  pledge  our  fidelity  to  the  principles  of  in- 
ternational Socialism,  as  embodied  in  the  united  thought  and  action  of 
the  Socialists  of  all  nations."  Now  what  does  that  mean?  Tt  certainly 
means  that  they  adhere  to  the  principles  of  Marxian  Socialism,  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  materialistic  conception  of  history  and  class-struggle. 

Now,  if  this  is  the  case,  and  nobody  can  deny  it,  then  Socialism  is 
essentially  materialistic  and  un-Christian.  For  the  materialistic  concep- 
tion of  history  contains  the  following  tenets :  "That  there  is  no  dualism 
of  spirit  and  matter;"  that  "beyond  nature  and  man  there  exists  noth- 
ing;" that  "those  higher  beings  created  by  our  religious  fancy  are  but 
the  fantastic  reflections  of  our  own  being;"  that  "the  ultimate  causes 
of  social  changes  and  revolutions  are  not  to  be  looked  for  in  the  brains 
of  men  and  in  their  growing  comprehension  of  eternal  truth  and  justice, 
but  in  the  changes  affecting  the  manner  of  production  and  exchange ; 
that  the  whole  history  of  mankind  has  been  a  history  of  class-struggles." 


—  14  — 


Any  one  who  has  a  firm  grasp  of  these  principles  will  understand 
that  according  to  this  materialistic  conception  of  history,  religion  is  al- 
ways the  result  of  the  prevailing  economic  conditions ;  that,  consequently, 
it  is  not  divine,  but  human ;  not  stable  and  above  time,  but  changeable 
and  dependent  on  economic  conditions ;  that  there  is  no  personal  God, 
no  Providence  watching  over  the  destinies  of  mankind,  no  spiritual,  im- 
mortal soul,  no  retribution  in  a  life  to  come.  Socialist  leaders  are  fully 
aware  of  these  consequences,  and  make  them  their  own. 

Karl  Marx  calls  religion  an  "absurd  sentiment,"  a  "fantastic  degra- 
dation of  human  nature."  "Man,"  he  says,  "makes  religion,  not  religion 
man.  Religion  is  the  sentiment  of  a  heartless  world,  as  it  is  the  spirit  of 
spiritless  conditions.  It  is  the  opium  of  the  people.  Religion  is  the  illu- 
sory  sun,  which  revolves  around  man  as  long  as  man  fails  to  revolve 
around  himself.  Religion  is  the  self-consciousness  of  a  human  being 
that  has  either  not  yet  found  itself  or  again  lost  itself."  (Rev.  John 
Ming,  S.J.,  "The  Characteristics  and  the  Religion  of  Modern  Socialism." 
p.  202). 

Engels  expresses  his  contempt  for  religion  in  almost  the  same  terms 
as  Alarx.  In  his  criticism  of  the  Socialist  platform  he  demanded  that  the 
Labor  Party  declare  its  intention  "of  delivering  men's  consciences  from 
the  specter  of  religion." 

Such  are  the  declarations  concerning  God  and  religion  made  by  the 
founders  of  modern  Socialism ;  declarations  which  are  conclusions  drawn 
with  logical  necessity  from  the  fundamental  tenets  of  the  materialistic 
conception  of  history;  declarations,  therefore,  which  must  be  accepted 
as  genuine  statements  of  socialist  thought. 

It  need  not  be  mentioned  that  thereby  Christianity,  its  doctrines  of 
paradise,  of  original  sin,  of  redemption  by  means  of  the  incarnation  and 
death  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  heaven  and  hell  are  thrown  overboard.  "As  to 
redemption  in  particular,"  says  Blatchford  in  his  infamous  book,  "God 
and  My  Neighbor,"  "there  is  neither  a  God=man  that  could  accomplish 
it,  nor  is  there  anything  in  man  that  should  require  it.  For  as  there  exists 
no  God,  no  incarnation  of  a  divine  person  is  possible.  Nor  could  man 
contract  a  guilt  in  the  sight  of  a  non-existing  God,  or  fear  a  punishment 
in  the  life  to  come,  if  there  is  no  immortal  spirit  in  him."  There  is  accord- 
ing to  socialist  views  only  one  evil  from  which  man  needs  to  be  rescued, 
oppression  and  exploitation  of  the  possessing  classes,  and  only  one  true 
and  real  good  which  he  must  pursue  as  his  happiness,  the  peace  and 
abundance  of  the  co-operative  ocmmonwealth.  To  rescue  him  from  this 
one  evil  and  secure  him  this  one  happiness  is  the  object  of  the  socialist 
movement.  Socialism,  therefore,  and  not  Christianity  is  the  only  re- 
demption of  mankind.  All  this  is  loudly  and  emphatically  heralded  by 
socialist  writers.  The  Berlin  Vorzvaerts  says  in  a  Christmas  reflection: 
"We  believe  in  no  Redeemer,  but  believe  in  redemption.  No  man  saw 
God  in  human  form,  no  Saviour  did  redeem  humanity.  Only  humanity 
itself — only  laboring  humanity — will  save  humanity." 


CONTENTS. 


I.  What  is  Modern  Socialism?  3 

II.  Principles  of  Modern  Socialism   5 

III.  Modern  Socialism  and  Private  Property  8 

IV.  Modern  Socialism  and  Christian  Marriage  10 

V.  Modern  Socialism  and  Religion  12 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  CENTRAL  BUREAU 


ENGLISH 

Brochure  I.— A  Great  Social  Experiment,  by  Chas.  D.  Plater,   vS.  J. 
Single  copies  5  cents;  12  copies  50  cents  ;  100  copies  I4. 00. 

Brochure  II.— The  Trutb  about  Socialism,  by  Peter  W.  Collins,  vSecretary, 
International  Brotherhood  of  Electrical  Workers.  Single  copies 
5  cents;  12  copies  50  cents  ;  100  copies  I4. 00. 

Brochure  III.  — Tlie  Ethical  Basis  ol  the  Social  Question,  by  Bernard  J. 

Otten,  S.J.  Single  copies5 cents  ;  12  copies  50  cents  ;  loocopies  |4.oo- 

Brochure  IV.  —  A  Minimum  Wage  by  Legislation,  by  the  Rev.  John  A. 

Ryan,  1).  I).,  Author  of  a  "A  Living  Wage,"  "The  Church  and 
Interest  Taking,"  etc.  Single  copies  5  cents  ;  12  copies  50  cents  ; 
100  copies  I4.00. 

Brochure  V.— General  Principles  ol  Social  Reiorm,  by  Rev.  Dr.  C.  Bruehl. 
Single  copies  5  cents;  12  copies  50  cents;  100  copies  ^4.00. 


Timely  Topics  Series  No.  I.  —  Freemasonry  and  Christianity.  A  Protest 
by  Some  American  Catholics.  Single  copies  5  cents;  12  copies 
50  cents;  100  Copies  I4  00. 

GERMAN 

1.  Heft,  —  Unsere  **Rueckstaendigkeit*',  Kin  Week-  und  Mahnruf  von 

Joseph  Matt.    Preis,  10  Cents;  |i  00  das  Dutzenrl;  |6.oo  das  Hundert. 

2.  Heft.  —  Chrlstenthum  und  Sozlale  Reiormarbelt,  Gedauken  und 

Vorschlaege,  von  Dr.  F.  luile.  Preis,  5  cents;  50  cents  das  Dutzend; 
$4.00  das  Hundert. 

3.  Heft.  —  Das  Lalenapostolat,  von  M.   Meschler,  S.  J.     Preis,  5  Cents; 

50  Cents  das  Dutzend;  ^4  00  das  Hundert. 

4.  Heft.  —  "Es  muss  annerscht  werden",  —  Die  soziale  Frage  beleuclitet 

von  Peter  und  Michel,  —  von  P.  A.  Ahlert,  C  vSS.  R.  Preis,  10  Cents 
|i.oo  das  Dutzend;  |6.oo  das  Hundert. 

5.  Heft.  —  Rundschrelben  Papst  Leos  XIII.  ueber  die  Arbeiterlrage. 

Preis,  5  Cents;  50  Cents  das  Dutzend;  I4.00  das  Hundert. 

6.  Heft.  —  Die  Plllchten  des  Ehelebens.    Fine  Kundgebung  Sr.  Eminenz 

des  hochw'sten  Herrn  Dcsir<5  Joseph  Kardinal  Mercier,  Erzbischof 
von  Mecheln  und  Primas  von  Helgien.  Preis,  5  Cents;  50  Cents  das 
Dutzend;  I4.00  das  Hundert. 

7.  Heft.  —  Die  Sonntagstaeillgung  ein  Stueck  sozlaler  Reiorm,  von 

Augustin  Lehnikuhl,  S.  J.     Mit  eineni  Nacliwort:  Die  Gefahren  der 
Sonntagsentheiligung  in  diesem  Lande.     Preis,  5  Cents;  50  Cents 
das  Dutzend;  I4.00  das  Hundert. 
Besides  the  above  the  Central  Bureau  has  published  a  number  of  English 
and  German  leaflets.    Complete  list  upon  request.    Books  covering  social  topics 
can  also  be  procured  from  the  Central  Bureau  at  bookdealers'  prices. 

CENTRAL  BUREAU 

307—8  Temple  Blig.  -^^51  St.  Louis,  Vlo. 


